The ECJ has upheld a Commission ruling to the effect that the exemption from the provision for loss forfeiture on change of shareholders for troubled companies being rescued constitutes unlawful state aid. Continue reading
Tax & Legal
The ECJ has held that oil lost through seepage or evaporation during transport is to be dutied as a withdrawal from loss of shipment. Continue reading
n ECJ advocate general has suggested that the customs duty due following an administrative offence should not be compounded with a charge to import VAT if, in the circumstances, release of the goods into free circulation within the EU can be excluded. Continue reading
The ECJ has confirmed a German provision for the recapture of foreign branch losses previously deducted on sale of the foreign permanent establishment. Continue reading
The ECJ has held that a general refusal to accept tax consultancy services from another member state is in breach of community law if it does not take the qualifications held in the other state into account. Continue reading
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court rule that a German rule requiring a bank to submit information to the tax authorities on the accounts of German residents held in foreign branches is a hindrance on the freedom of establishment justified by the need to ensure fair and uniform taxation. If this obligation conflicts with the laws of the other state, that state should allow its fulfilment, provided that fulfilment is not excessive.
A southern German bank maintained a branch in Austria, where a number of German residents held accounts. The German Inheritance and Gift Tax Act requires banks to inform the relevant tax authorities of the assets held or managed on behalf of deceased account holders. In 2008, the local inheritance tax office requested the bank for account information on all German resident account holders at its Austrian branch who had died since 2001. The German bank objected that it could not supply this information without infringing an Austrian bank secrecy rule making it a criminal offence to pass information on the affairs of an account holder to other than specified recipients without his or her consent. Tax offices were not one of the specified recipients and a deceased individual was no longer able to give consent.
This clash of laws brought the case before the ECJ. The advocate general has suggested that the court take the position that there is no direct clash of laws, given that the German rule is enshrined in a tax act, whereas the Austrian rule is a provision of the Banking Act with no specific mention of taxation. Rather, there is a restriction on the freedom of establishment to be found in the German rule, though this restriction is justified by the need to protect the integrity of the tax system and does not go beyond the minimum necessary to achieve that aim. The advocate general recognises that such a finding does nothing to solve the case at issue – the conflict of laws – and contents himself with the suggestion that the Austrian authorities be duty bound to apply, or disapply, their bank secrecy rule in a spirit of cooperation within the confines of European law. Quite how this could be expressed in an order by a European or German court in a case to which Austria is not a party, he does not say.
The ECJ case reference is C-522/14 Sparkasse Allgäu opinion of November 26, 2015.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court hold that Germany has not properly transposed the input tax split provision of the Sixth directive and cannot therefore demand of the taxpayer any other than a turnover based split. Continue reading
The ECJ has held that the continued liability to German tax on German sources income of a former resident is not discrimination prohibited by community law. Continue reading
The EU and Liechtenstein have signed a tax transparency agreement for the automatic exchange of information between the authorities of Liechtenstein and the EU member states on the bank accounts held locally for residents of the other state. Continue reading
The ECJ has held that dealing in “bitcoin” and other virtual currencies is equivalent to a traditional currency exchange and is, as such, exempt from VAT. Continue reading